as the judge pann carefully extracted the argument they had to make based on the law and real constitution, the only real argument they have they have conceded that under certain circumstances he could be prosecuted for even official acts, and they also conceded on the double jeopardy argument. all they have left is the fig leaf of a negative inference from the impeachment judgment clause, which makes plain that if he is impeached and convicted, he s also subject to criminal jurisdiction and prosecution. it s silent as to, you know, a president who s impeached and not convicted. it s silent as to presidents who are not impeached. clearly there is no guidance in the constitution that provides the immunity that they have asked for. and i think that ruling will
we denied the jurisdiction, that s correct. and you have either abandoned or not made the fifth amendment double jeopardy argument before us. from the impeachment judgment claw. we haven t argued had if you go to the straight double jeopardy clause that that alone would result in impeachment. we haven t said straightforward directly under the double jeo jeopardy clause in this court. so before that occur, i want to speak to you more about jurisdiction. because we still have to satisfy ourselves that we have the jurisdiction. with respect to the collateral order doctrine, how do you place that in line with the case that specifically says in a criminal case your jurisdiction needs to stem from the constitution or be
that s a different case. this is an oral argument in the d.c. circuit court of appeals. mr. trump filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him because he claimed two things. one, that he is immune from prosecution as the former president. the answer to that legally is, no, nonsense. you re not. the second claim that he brought is that double jeopardy precludes him being charged with these crimes. again, the answer is no, wrong. double jeopardy that s not double jeopardy, and that s not going to work to his favor. maybe i m bias, elise, maybe i come at this from a different vantage point because i was a former federal prosecutor, but i think these arguments that advanced in the d.c. circuit to dismiss the indictment are frivolous. i think he loses unanimously and quickly. chuck, if he loses the double jeopardy argument, he loses the sorry, i didn t know it was a
amendment double jeopardy argument before us. we framed the double jeopardy argument as arising from the impeachment judgment clause. that incorporates principles of double jeopardy, but we haven t set a straight forward double jeopardy clause in this court. before that occurs, i do want to speak a little bit more about jurisdiction, because we still have to satisfy ourselves that we have the jurisdiction. even though you believe there s interlocutory jurisdiction with respect to the collateral order doctrine, how do you place that with your jurisdiction needs to stem from the constitution or be explicit in statutory law? we have three responses to that. one is if you look at the
and the plain language of the impeachment judgment caused all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not i asked you a yes or no question. could a president who ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival, who s not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? if he were impeached and convicted first. so your answer is no? my answer is qualified yes. reporter: you can see where the former president s legal team is being pushed to see the limits of that immunity. the other thing that they were arguing today is that because he was impeached, but acquitted by the senate, that he cannot be prosecuted again. in essence a double jeopardy argument. now, the justice department s side, you know, one of the things you will hear them pushing back on is this idea that just because they are doing this prosecution, that